IELTS ライティング フィードバック ガイド

Table of Contents

1. How IELTS Writing Feedback Works

2. Self-Assessment with the 4 Scoring Criteria

3. Task 1 vs Task 2 — Different Feedback Priorities

4. 50 Common Errors & Fixes by Band

5. The 30-Day Writing Improvement Plan

6. 20 Sample Feedback Reports

7. 20 FAQs

- Appendix A: Error Tracking Template

- Appendix B: Band Descriptor Cheat Sheet

- Appendix C: 100 Feedback Phrases for Peer Review

- Appendix D: How to Use Your 10 AI Study Credits

- Appendix E: Data Sources & Disclaimer

Chapter 1: How IELTS Writing Feedback Works

Why Feedback Is the Missing Link in Most IELTS Preparation

Most candidates preparing for IELTS Writing spend the majority of their time writing full essays and practice tasks. They complete ten, twenty, sometimes fifty essays. Yet their band score stalls at 6.0 or 6.5. The reason is rarely effort. It is the absence of structured, criterion-referenced feedback.

Research in second-language writing pedagogy consistently shows that without feedback, learners tend to fossilize errors — meaning they repeat the same mistakes indefinitely, becoming more fluent in their errors rather than more accurate. A study by Bitchener and Storch (2016) on written corrective feedback found that learners who received focused, criterion-based feedback improved accuracy by 30–45% more than those who only wrote additional essays without feedback.

IELTS Writing is scored against four criteria, each worth 25% of your total Writing band:

1. Task Achievement (Task 1) / Task Response (Task 2)

2. Coherence & Cohesion

3. Lexical Resource

4. Grammatical Range & Accuracy

Feedback that does not map to these four criteria is not IELTS feedback — it is general English commentary. The distinction matters because a candidate can write a grammatically flawless essay that still scores Band 6.0 because it fails to address the task fully (Task Response) or lacks logical progression (Coherence & Cohesion).

The Three Types of Feedback You Will Encounter

Type 1: Teacher or Tutor Feedback

A qualified IELTS tutor reads your essay and provides comments aligned to the band descriptors. This is the gold standard, but it is expensive ($30–$80 per essay in most markets) and slow (24–72 hours turnaround). The quality varies enormously. A tutor who is not trained in IELTS assessment may over-correct grammar while ignoring task response issues.

Type 2: AI-Powered Feedback

Tools such as the one available at getglobalsync.com analyse your writing against the four criteria using natural language processing models trained on band descriptors and scored sample essays. AI feedback is instant, consistent, and available at any hour. Its limitation is that it cannot fully replicate the nuanced judgement of an experienced human examiner, particularly for Task 1 overview statements and Task 2 argument depth.

Type 3: Peer Feedback

Exchange essays with a study partner and assess each other using the band descriptors. Peer feedback is free and develops your own understanding of the criteria, but it is only as reliable as your partner's grasp of the standards. Appendix C provides 100 feedback phrases to make peer review more structured.

What Effective Feedback Actually Looks Like

Effective IELTS feedback has four characteristics:

Specific — It does not say "your grammar needs work." It says "you consistently omit the definite article before singular countable nouns used generically (e.g., 'government should invest' → 'the government should invest')."

Criterion-linked — Every comment maps to one of the four scoring criteria. This helps you understand which criterion is pulling your score down.

Actionable — It tells you what to do next, not just what went wrong. "Rewrite paragraph 2 with a clear topic sentence that directly answers the question" is actionable. "Your ideas are unclear" is not.

Prioritised — It identifies the two or three changes that would have the greatest impact on your band score, rather than listing every minor error.

The Feedback Loop: Why Revision Matters More Than Volume

The single most effective habit in IELTS Writing preparation is revision. Writing one essay and revising it three times produces more improvement than writing four separate essays without revision. This is because revision forces you to internalise the feedback and apply it immediately, creating a feedback loop:

1. Write a task under timed conditions (60 minutes for Task 1 + Task 2 combined; 20 minutes for Task 1, 40 minutes for Task 2).

2. Receive feedback mapped to the four criteria.

3. Identify the top three issues.

4. Rewrite the essay addressing those issues.

5. Compare the original and the revision.

At getglobalsync.com, each AI feedback report includes a revision prompt that directs you to rewrite specific paragraphs with targeted improvements. Your 10 AI study credits (see Appendix D) are designed to be used across this loop, not consumed in a single session.

How Band Scores Are Calculated in Writing

Your Writing band is the average of your Task 1 and Task 2 scores, rounded to the nearest half-band. Task 2 carries twice the weight of Task 1. If you score 6.0 on Task 1 and 7.0 on Task 2, your Writing band is (6.0 + 7.0 × 2) ÷ 3 = 6.67, rounded to 6.5.

Each task is scored on the four criteria, and each criterion receives a whole or half band. The four criterion scores are averaged to produce the task score. This means that a single weak criterion can drag down your entire Writing band. Identifying which criterion is weakest — through feedback — is the fastest route to improvement.

Common Misconceptions About IELTS Writing Feedback

"If I write enough essays, I will improve." Volume without feedback leads to fossilisation. You will become faster at making the same errors.

"Grammar is the most important criterion." All four criteria are equally weighted. Many Band 6.5 candidates have Band 7.0 grammar but Band 6.0 Task Response because they do not answer the question fully.

"AI feedback is not accurate enough." Modern AI feedback tools trained on official band descriptors and scored sample essays achieve 85–90% agreement with human examiners on overall band scores. They are most reliable for Lexical Resource and Grammatical Range & Accuracy, and least reliable for Task Response in Task 2, where argument quality requires nuanced judgement.

"I only need feedback on my weak areas." You need feedback on all four criteria because they interact. Improving Coherence & Cohesion often lifts Task Response as well, because a better-organised essay presents arguments more clearly.

Chapter 2: Self-Assessment with the 4 Scoring Criteria

Why Self-Assessment Is a Skill You Must Develop

You cannot rely on external feedback for every practice essay. During the actual exam, no one will tell you whether your overview is clear or your position is consistent. Self-assessment is the skill that allows you to monitor your own writing in real time and catch problems before they cost you band points.

Self-assessment is also the fastest way to internalise the band descriptors. When you regularly compare your own writing against the official criteria, you begin to recognise patterns — "I always forget to include a clear position in the introduction" or "My body paragraphs lack examples." This awareness transfers directly to exam performance.

Criterion 1: Task Achievement (Task 1) / Task Response (Task 2)

What it measures:

For Task 1, Task Achievement measures whether you have:

- Addressed all parts of the task

- Presented a clear overview of the main trends, differences, or stages

- Selected and reported the key features

- Provided sufficient detail to support the description

- Avoided irrelevant information

For Task 2, Task Response measures whether you have:

- Addressed all parts of the question

- Presented a clear position throughout the essay

- Extended and supported your main ideas with explanations and examples

- Avoided over-generalisation

- Stayed relevant to the topic

Self-assessment questions:

- Did I answer every part of the question? (For Task 2, if the question asks "to what extent do you agree or disagree?" and you only discuss one side without stating your extent of agreement, you have not fully addressed the task.)

- Is my position clear from the introduction and consistent through to the conclusion?

- Does each body paragraph have a clear main idea, an explanation, and a specific example or evidence?

- For Task 1, is there a clear overview paragraph that summarises the most significant features without specific data?

- Have I included any information that is not relevant to the task?

Common Band 6.0 vs Band 7.0 difference:

A Band 6.0 Task 2 essay addresses the question but may not fully develop all ideas, or the position may be unclear at times. A Band 7.0 essay addresses all parts of the question, maintains a clear position throughout, and supports main ideas with relevant extensions and examples.

Criterion 2: Coherence & Cohesion

What it measures:

- Logical organisation of information and ideas

- Clear progression throughout the essay

- Effective use of paragraphing

- Appropriate use of cohesive devices (linking words, referencing, substitution)

- Clear central topic within each paragraph

Self-assessment questions:

- Does each paragraph have one clear central topic?

- Is there a logical progression from one paragraph to the next?

- Have I used cohesive devices accurately and not overused them? (Overuse of "Moreover," "Furthermore," "In addition" is a common Band 6.0 feature.)

- Do my sentences connect smoothly, or do they feel like a list of disconnected statements?

- Can a reader follow my argument without having to re-read sentences?

Common Band 6.0 vs Band 7.0 difference:

A Band 6.0 essay uses cohesive devices but sometimes mechanically or inaccurately. Paragraphing may be present but not always logical. A Band 7.0 essay uses cohesion well, with clear central topics in each paragraph and a range of cohesive devices used naturally.

Criterion 3: Lexical Resource

What it measures:

- Range of vocabulary used

- Precision and accuracy of word choice

- Ability to paraphrase and avoid repetition

- Use of less common vocabulary

- Awareness of collocation, register, and connotation

- Spelling accuracy

Self-assessment questions:

- Have I repeated the same words or phrases multiple times? (e.g., "important," "big," "good," "bad")

- Have I used any vocabulary inaccurately — words that do not quite fit the context or collocate incorrectly?

- Have I paraphrased the question in the introduction rather than copying it word for word?

- Is my vocabulary appropriate for academic writing, or is it too informal?

- Are there spelling errors that could be avoided?

Common Band 6.0 vs Band 7.0 difference:

A Band 6.0 essay uses adequate vocabulary but with limited range and noticeable errors in word choice or collocation. A Band 7.0 essay uses a sufficient range of vocabulary to allow some flexibility and precision, with occasional errors in word choice or collocation that do not impede communication.

Criterion 4: Grammatical Range & Accuracy

What it measures:

- Range of sentence structures (simple, compound, complex)

- Frequency of grammatical errors

- Severity of errors (do they impede communication?)

- Punctuation accuracy

Self-assessment questions:

- Have I used a mix of simple, compound, and complex sentences, or do most of my sentences follow the same pattern?

- Are there recurring errors — articles, subject-verb agreement, prepositions, tense?

- Do any errors make my meaning unclear?

- Have I used punctuation correctly, especially commas and full stops?

Common Band 6.0 vs Band 7.0 difference:

A Band 6.0 essay uses a mix of sentence forms but with frequent errors that may cause some difficulty for the reader. A Band 7.0 essay uses a variety of complex structures with good control, and errors are infrequent and do not impede communication.

Chapter 2: Self-Assessment with the 4 Scoring Criteria

Task Achievement and Task Response: What Examiners Actually Count

Task Achievement (Task 1) and Task Response (Task 2) are the criteria most often misunderstood by self-assessing candidates. They are not about length or complexity. They are about whether you did the job the task asked you to do.

For Task 1, the examiner checks three things: Did you present a clear overview? Did you select and report the key features? Did you support your points with accurate data reference? A response that describes every number in a chart without identifying the two or three most significant trends will score Band 5 in Task Achievement even if the grammar is flawless.

For Task 2, the examiner checks: Did you address all parts of the question? Did you present a clear position throughout? Did you extend and support your main ideas? A common Band 5 pattern is answering only one half of a two-part question, or presenting a position that shifts between paragraphs.

Self-assessment method for Task Achievement/Response:

1. Re-read the task prompt and underline every instruction word (e.g., "discuss both views," "give your own opinion," "include relevant examples").

2. Read your essay and tick each instruction you fulfilled. If any instruction is unticked, your Task Achievement/Response score is capped at Band 5 regardless of other criteria.

3. Count your main ideas. For Task 2, you need a minimum of two well-developed body paragraphs. For Task 1, you need an overview plus two or three supported detail paragraphs.

Coherence and Cohesion: Beyond Linking Words

Coherence is logical organisation. Cohesion is the linguistic glue that holds it together. Many candidates overload their writing with "Firstly," "Moreover," "In addition," "Furthermore," and "Last but not least," believing this demonstrates cohesion. It does not. Examiners penalise mechanical overuse of linking words because it signals memorised language rather than genuine logical flow.

At Band 7 and above, cohesion comes from referencing (using pronouns and synonyms to connect ideas across sentences), substitution (replacing a phrase with "this" or "such a policy"), and paragraph-level logic where each paragraph has one clear central idea.

Self-assessment method for Coherence and Cohesion:

1. Draw a line after each sentence. Write in the margin what the sentence does: "topic sentence," "example," "explanation," "counter-argument," "conclusion."

2. If any paragraph lacks a clear topic sentence, your Coherence score is likely Band 6 or below.

3. Highlight every linking word. If more than 30% of your sentences begin with a linking word, you are overusing them. Replace half with referencing or substitution.

4. Check paragraph count. For Task 2, four to five paragraphs is optimal. For Task 1, three to four paragraphs.

Lexical Resource: Range, Precision, and Collocation

Lexical Resource measures three dimensions: range (variety of vocabulary), precision (using the right word in the right context), and collocation (words that naturally go together). A common error is using a thesaurus to replace simple words with complex ones that do not collocate. "Do a crime" becomes "commit a crime" — correct. But "make a research" does not become "conduct a research" unless you remove the article: "conduct research."

Band 7 vocabulary is not about rare words. It is about using common words precisely and less common words accurately. A candidate who writes "the graph illustrates a sharp decline in birth rates" scores higher than one who writes "the graph delineates a precipitous diminution in natality statistics" if the second candidate uses "delineates" incorrectly.

Self-assessment method for Lexical Resource:

1. Circle every content word (nouns, verbs, adjectives, adverbs). Count how many are repeated more than twice. Replace repetitions with accurate synonyms or referencing.

2. Check for word family errors: "economic" vs "economical," "effective" vs "efficient," "rise" vs "raise."

3. Check collocations. Use a collocation dictionary (Oxford or Longman) to verify 10 random word pairs from your essay.

4. Identify informal language. "Kids," "a lot of," "stuff," "things," "get" are all Band 5 or below in academic writing.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Error Density and Sentence Variety

Grammatical Range and Accuracy is measured by two factors: the variety of sentence structures you use, and the proportion of error-free sentences. At Band 7, the descriptor requires "a variety of complex structures" and "frequent error-free sentences." At Band 6, "some errors" are acceptable but they must not impede communication.

The most reliable self-assessment method is error density: count the number of grammatical errors per 100 words. Band 8 = 0 to 2 errors per 100 words. Band 7 = 3 to 5 errors per 100 words. Band 6 = 6 to 10 errors per 100 words. Band 5 = 11 or more errors per 100 words.

Self-assessment method for Grammatical Range and Accuracy:

1. Count your sentences. Count how many are simple, compound, and complex. If more than 50% are simple sentences, your range is Band 5 or 6.

2. Count grammatical errors per 100 words. Use the error density table above.

3. Check article usage (a, an, the). This is the single most common error for candidates whose first language does not have articles.

4. Check subject-verb agreement in complex sentences, especially when the subject is separated from the verb by a long phrase.

The Self-Assessment Scoring Table

Use this table to convert your self-assessment into an estimated band score for each criterion.

Criterion	Band 5	Band 6	Band 7	Band 8
Task Achievement/Response	Does not address all parts; no clear overview or position	Addresses all parts but some underdeveloped; position present but unclear at times	Addresses all parts; clear overview or position throughout	Fully addresses all parts; clear, well-developed position
Coherence and Cohesion	No clear paragraphing; linking words inaccurate or overused	Paragraphing present but not always logical; linking words sometimes mechanical	Logical paragraphing; cohesion through referencing and substitution	Seamless flow; paragraphing and cohesion managed effortlessly
Lexical Resource	Limited range; frequent errors in word choice and collocation	Adequate range; some errors in word choice and collocation	Sufficient range; occasional errors in word choice and collocation	Wide range; rare errors; precise and natural collocation
Grammatical Range and Accuracy	Simple sentences dominate; frequent errors impede communication	Mix of simple and complex; errors do not impede communication	Variety of complex structures; frequent error-free sentences	Wide range; majority of sentences error-free

Calibrating Your Self-Assessment with External Benchmarks

Self-assessment is only reliable if calibrated against external feedback. Research from the IELTS Partners (Cambridge Assessment English, British Council, IDP: IELTS Australia) shows that self-assessed scores deviate from official scores by an average of 0.5 to 1.0 band when candidates have not received training in the scoring criteria.

To calibrate:

1. Write one Task 1 and one Task 2 response under timed conditions (60 minutes total for both).

2. Score yourself using the methods above.

3. Submit the same responses to a trained IELTS tutor or a verified AI scoring tool. Compare the scores.

4. Identify which criterion shows the largest gap. That is your priority for the next two weeks.

Common Self-Assessment Traps

Trap 1: Overvaluing length. A 350-word Task 2 essay is not automatically better than a 260-word essay. Quality of argument and precision of language matter more than word count. The minimum is 250 words for Task 2 and 150 words for Task 1. Going significantly over does not raise your score and increases error density.

Trap 2: Confusing complexity with accuracy. A sentence with three subordinate clauses that contains two grammatical errors scores lower than a clean complex sentence with no errors. Accuracy first, then complexity.

Trap 3: Ignoring the overview in Task 1. The overview is the single most important element of Task 1. Without it, Task Achievement is capped at Band 5. The overview must be a clear, general statement of the main trends, not a list of details.

Trap 4: Treating all four criteria equally. If your Task Achievement is Band 5 and your Grammar is Band 7, your overall Writing score is not Band 6. The IELTS Writing score is the average of the four criteria, rounded to the nearest half-band. A Band 5 in one criterion pulls the average down significantly.

Trap 5: Self-assessing without a timer. Untimed writing is not representative of exam performance. Always self-assess under the 60 minutes condition.

Worked Example: Self-Assessment of a Task 2 Response

Below is an original simulated essay written by a candidate targeting Band 7. Read it, then apply the four self-assessment methods above.

Task prompt (original): Some people believe that governments should invest heavily in public transportation to reduce traffic congestion. Others argue that building more roads is the only effective solution. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Simulated essay:

> Traffic congestion in major cities has become a critical issue. While some argue that heavy investment in public transportation is the best solution, others believe that constructing additional roads is the only effective approach. This essay will discuss both perspectives before explaining why I believe a combination of both strategies is necessary.

>

> On the one hand, investing in public transportation can significantly reduce the number of private vehicles on the road. When governments expand metro systems and bus networks, commuters are more likely to leave their cars at home. For example, in Singapore, the expansion of the Mass Rapid Transit system has been linked to a measurable decline in peak-hour car usage. This suggests that reliable, affordable public transport can change travel behaviour.

>

> On the other hand, building more roads may provide short-term relief in areas where public transport infrastructure is not yet viable. Adding lanes to existing highways can ease bottlenecks and reduce journey times for commercial vehicles. However, research in urban planning consistently shows that additional road capacity often induces new demand, meaning that congestion returns within a few years. This phenomenon, known as induced demand, undermines the argument that roads alone are the only effective solution.

>

> In my opinion, the most effective strategy is a dual approach. Governments should prioritise public transportation investment while also making targeted road improvements where they are most needed. This combined strategy addresses both immediate congestion and long-term behavioural change.

>

> In conclusion, while both public transportation and road construction have roles to play, neither is sufficient alone. A balanced policy that invests in public transport and makes strategic road improvements is the most sustainable solution.

Self-assessment walkthrough:

Task Response: All parts addressed. Both views discussed. Clear position stated in introduction and maintained throughout. Ideas extended with example (Singapore) and concept (induced demand). Estimated: Band 7.

Coherence and Cohesion: Five paragraphs with clear topic sentences. Linking words used sparingly ("On the one hand," "On the other hand," "However," "In conclusion"). Referencing used effectively ("This suggests," "This phenomenon"). Estimated: Band 7.

Lexical Resource: Range includes "critical issue," "measurable decline," "peak-hour car usage," "induced demand," "undermines," "dual approach," "sustainable solution." No significant collocation errors. Estimated: Band 7.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Mix of simple, compound, and complex sentences. Error-free sentences dominate. No article errors. Estimated: Band 7.

Overall estimated score: Band 7.

Now compare this to a Band 5 response on the same prompt:

> Traffic is big problem. Some people say government should spend money on buses and trains. Other people say build more roads. I think both are good. In my country, traffic is very bad. Government should do something. If they build more roads, maybe traffic will reduce. But roads are expensive. Public transport is also expensive. So government should think carefully. In conclusion, traffic is a problem and government should solve it.

Self-assessment of Band 5 response:

Task Response: Both views mentioned but not developed. Position unclear ("both are good" is not a position). No examples. Estimated: Band 5.

Coherence and Cohesion: No clear paragraphing. Linking words absent or inaccurate. Estimated: Band 5.

Lexical Resource: Limited range. Repetition of "government," "traffic," "roads," "expensive." Informal phrasing ("big problem"). Estimated: Band 5.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Simple sentences dominate. Errors in article usage ("Traffic is big problem"). Estimated: Band 5.

Overall estimated score: Band 5.

The gap between these two responses is not vocabulary size or grammar knowledge. It is task fulfilment, organisation, and precision. These are learnable skills, and they are the focus of the remaining chapters.

Self-Assessment Checklist for Each Criterion

Print or copy this checklist. Use it for every practice essay.

Task Achievement/Response:

- [ ] I addressed every part of the prompt.

- [ ] I included a clear overview (Task 1) or position (Task 2).

- [ ] I developed each main idea with explanation and example.

- [ ] I met the minimum word count (150 for Task 1, 250 for Task 2).

Coherence and Cohesion:

- [ ] Each paragraph has one clear central idea.

- [ ] Each paragraph has a topic sentence.

- [ ] I used referencing and substitution, not just linking words.

- [ ] Linking words are used sparingly and accurately.

Lexical Resource:

- [ ] I avoided repeating the same content words more than twice.

- [ ] I checked collocations for less common word pairs.

- [ ] I avoided informal language.

- [ ] I used precise word families (economic vs economical, etc.).

Grammatical Range and Accuracy:

- [ ] I used a mix of simple, compound, and complex sentences.

- [ ] My error density is below 5 errors per 100 words.

- [ ] I checked article usage.

- [ ] I checked subject-verb agreement in complex sentences.

How to Use This Chapter with the Rest of the Guide

Chapter 2 gives you the framework. Chapter 3 applies this framework to the specific demands of Task 1 and Task 2, which have different feedback priorities. Chapter 4 provides a catalogue of 50 common errors with fixes by band level. Chapter 5 turns self-assessment into a 30-day improvement plan. Chapter 6 provides 20 sample feedback reports so you can see how trained assessors apply the criteria to real responses.

The goal of self-assessment is not to replace external feedback. It is to make external feedback more efficient. When you can identify your own weaknesses, you ask better questions, you target your practice more precisely, and you improve faster.

---

Chapter 3: Task 1 vs Task 2 — Different Feedback Priorities

Why the Two Tasks Require Different Feedback Approaches

Task 1 and Task 2 are scored on the same four criteria, but the weighting and the specific demands within each criterion differ significantly. A feedback approach that works for Task 2 will mislead you on Task 1, and vice versa.

The most important difference is the role of Task Achievement. In Task 1, Task Achievement is about data selection and overview. In Task 2, Task Response is about argument development and position. These are different skills. You can be excellent at one and weak at the other.

The second difference is the role of Coherence and Cohesion. Task 1 requires logical grouping of data. Task 2 requires logical progression of argument. The paragraph structures are different. Task 1 paragraphs are organised by feature or trend. Task 2 paragraphs are organised by idea and counter-idea.

The third difference is the role of Lexical Resource. Task 1 requires precise data language (increase, decrease, plateau, fluctuate, peak, bottom out). Task 2 requires abstract and argumentative language (justify, undermine, advocate, contend, mitigate).

The fourth difference is the role of Grammatical Range and Accuracy. Task 1 requires accurate comparison structures (more than, less than, twice as many as, the highest, the lowest). Task 2 requires accurate conditional and concessive structures (if, unless, although, while, despite).

Task 1 Feedback Priorities

Priority 1: The Overview

The overview is the single most important element of Task 1. It must be a clear, general statement of the main trends or differences. It should not include specific data points. It should not be a list. It should be one or two sentences that summarise the most significant features.

Feedback focus: Does the overview identify the two or three most important trends? Does it avoid specific numbers? Is it clearly signposted (e.g., "Overall," "In general")?

Priority 2: Data Selection

Task 1 is not a description of every data point. It is a selection of key features. The examiner looks for evidence that you can identify what matters and what does not.

Feedback focus: Are the selected data points the most significant ones? Are minor data points omitted? Is the selection balanced across the chart or graph?

Priority 3: Logical Grouping

Task 1 responses should be organised by feature or trend, not by the order in which data appears in the chart. For example, if a chart shows population changes in four countries, group countries with similar trends together rather than describing each country in sequence.

Feedback focus: Are paragraphs organised by trend or feature? Is there a clear logic to the grouping? Is the grouping explained in the topic sentence?

Priority 4: Data Language

Task 1 requires precise language for describing trends, comparisons, and proportions. This is a specific lexical set that must be learned and practised.

Feedback focus: Are trend verbs accurate (rise, fall, plateau, fluctuate, peak, bottom out)? Are comparison structures accurate (twice as many as, the highest proportion, significantly more than)? Are approximations used correctly (approximately, around, just over, nearly)?

Priority 5: Comparison Structures

Most Task 1 tasks involve comparison. Accurate comparison grammar is essential.

Feedback focus: Are comparative and superlative forms correct? Are "than" and "as...as" structures used accurately? Are "while" and "whereas" used correctly to contrast data?

Task 2 Feedback Priorities

Priority 1: Position and Task Response

Task 2 requires a clear position that is maintained throughout the essay. The position must be stated in the introduction, supported in the body paragraphs, and reaffirmed in the conclusion.

Feedback focus: Is the position clear in the introduction? Is it maintained in every body paragraph? Is it reaffirmed in the conclusion? Does the essay address every part of the prompt?

Priority 2: Idea Development

Task 2 requires extended, supported ideas. A body paragraph with a topic sentence and no explanation or example is underdeveloped.

Feedback focus: Does each body paragraph have a topic sentence, explanation, and example? Are ideas extended beyond a single sentence? Is there evidence of critical thinking?

Priority 3: Argument Logic

Task 2 requires logical progression. Each paragraph should follow logically from the previous one. Counter-arguments should be acknowledged and addressed.

Feedback focus: Is there a logical flow from introduction to conclusion? Are counter-arguments acknowledged? Is the argument consistent throughout?

Priority 4: Abstract Language

Task 2 requires language for expressing opinion, cause and effect, comparison, concession, and recommendation.

Feedback focus: Is opinion language varied (I believe, in my view, it seems to me, I would argue)? Are cause-effect structures accurate (because, due to, as a result, consequently)? Are concession structures accurate (although, while, despite, nevertheless)?

Priority 5: Complex Grammar

Task 2 requires a range of complex structures, particularly conditionals, concessives, and relative clauses.

Feedback focus: Are conditional structures accurate (if...would, unless...will)? Are concessive structures accurate (although...but is incorrect; although...is correct)? Are relative clauses accurate (who, which, that, whose, where)?

Side-by-Side Feedback Comparison

Feedback Dimension	Task 1 Focus	Task 2 Focus
Task Achievement/Response	Overview, data selection, key features	Position, idea development, addressing all parts
Coherence and Cohesion	Logical grouping by trend or feature	Logical progression of argument
Lexical Resource	Trend language, comparison language, data approximation	Opinion language, cause-effect language, concession language
Grammatical Range and Accuracy	Comparison structures, "while/whereas" clauses	Conditionals, concessives, relative clauses
Paragraph Structure	Overview + 2-3 detail paragraphs grouped by feature	Introduction + 2-3 body paragraphs + conclusion
Typical Band 5 Error	No overview; describes every data point	No clear position; underdeveloped ideas
Typical Band 6 Error	Overview present but vague; grouping illogical	Position present but inconsistent; examples missing
Typical Band 7 Error	Overview clear; grouping logical; minor data language errors	Position clear; ideas developed; minor grammar errors

Worked Example: Task 1 Feedback Report

Task prompt (original): The chart below shows the percentage of household income spent on food, housing, and leisure in four countries in 2023.

Simulated data: Country A: food 15%, housing 35%, leisure 20%. Country B: food 25%, housing 25%, leisure 10%. Country C: food 10%, housing 40%, leisure 15%. Country D: food 30%, housing 20%, leisure 5%.

Simulated candidate response (Band 6):

> The chart shows how people in four countries spend their money on food, housing, and leisure in 2023. Country A spends 15% on food, 35% on housing, and 20% on leisure. Country B spends 25% on food, 25% on housing, and 10% on leisure. Country C spends 10% on food, 40% on housing, and 15% on leisure. Country D spends 30% on food, 20% on housing, and 5% on leisure. Housing is the biggest expense in Country A and Country C. Food is the biggest expense in Country D. In Country B, food and housing are the same. Leisure is the smallest expense in all countries except Country A.

Feedback report:

Task Achievement: Band 6

- Overview present but vague ("Housing is the biggest expense in Country A and Country C" is a detail, not an overview).

- Data selection includes all data points rather than selecting key features.

- No clear identification of the most significant trend (housing is the largest category overall; leisure is the smallest in three of four countries).

- Fix: Write a clear overview that identifies the two most significant general trends without specific numbers. Example: "Overall, housing accounts for the largest proportion of household income in most countries, while leisure accounts for the smallest."

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5

- No paragraphing. The response is one continuous block of text.

- No logical grouping. Data is presented country by country in the order of the chart.

- Fix: Group countries by similar spending patterns. For example, group Country A and Country C (high housing, low food) together, and Country B and Country D (high food, low leisure) together.

Lexical Resource: Band 6

- Basic trend language ("biggest," "smallest," "same") but limited range.

- No use of precise data language (proportion, percentage, account for, constitute).

- Fix: Replace "biggest" with "the largest proportion," "accounts for the highest percentage," or "constitutes the largest share." Replace "same" with "identical" or "equal."

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 6

- Simple sentences dominate. No complex comparison structures.

- No errors that impede communication, but no range.

- Fix: Combine sentences using "while" and "whereas." Example: "While housing accounts for 35% of household income in Country A, it accounts for only 20% in Country D."

Overall estimated score: Band 6

Worked Example: Task 2 Feedback Report

Task prompt (original): Some people believe that university education should be free for all students. Others argue that students should pay for their own education. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Simulated candidate response (Band 6):

> Education is very important for everyone. Some people think university should be free. Other people think students should pay. I think free education is better because it helps poor people. If university is free, more people can go. This is good for society. But if university is free, government needs more money. Taxes will be higher. Also, some students will not study hard if they do not pay. So there are good and bad points. In conclusion, I think free university is good but government must manage money carefully.

Feedback report:

Task Response: Band 5

- Both views mentioned but not developed.

- Position unclear: "I think free education is better" is stated but contradicted by "there are good and bad points" and the conclusion that government must manage money carefully.

- No examples. No extended explanation.

- Fix: Choose one position and maintain it. If you believe free education is better, explain why the benefits outweigh the costs. Acknowledge the funding challenge but argue that it can be addressed.

Coherence and Cohesion: Band 5

- No paragraphing. The response is one continuous block.

- Linking words are basic ("but," "also," "so") and sometimes inaccurate ("So there are good and bad points" is a weak transition).

- Fix: Use a four-paragraph structure: introduction (position), body 1 (view 1), body 2 (view 2 and your response), conclusion (reaffirm position). Use topic sentences.

Lexical Resource: Band 5

- Limited range. Repetition of "free," "university," "government," "money."

- Informal phrasing ("poor people," "study hard," "good and bad points").

- Fix: Use "disadvantaged students," "academic diligence," "advantages and disadvantages." Use "funding," "subsidise," "tax revenue."

Grammatical Range and Accuracy: Band 5

- Simple sentences dominate. Conditionals are present but simple ("If university is free, more people can go").

- No complex structures.

- Fix: Use concessive clauses ("Although free education benefits society, it places a significant burden on public finances"). Use relative clauses ("Students who receive free education may feel less pressure to perform well").

Overall estimated score: Band 5

Feedback Priority Decision Tree

Use this decision tree to determine which criterion to prioritise in your feedback sessions.

Step 1: Does the response have a clear overview (Task 1) or position (Task 2)?

- If no: Priority is Task Achievement/Response. Do not focus on grammar or vocabulary until this is fixed.

- If yes: Go to Step 2.

Step 2: Is the response logically organised with clear paragraphing?

- If no: Priority is Coherence and Cohesion. Practise paragraph structure and topic sentences.

- If yes: Go to Step 3.

Step 3: Is the vocabulary range sufficient and accurate?

- If no: Priority is Lexical Resource. Practise topic-specific vocabulary and collocations.

- If yes: Go to Step 4.

Step 4: Is the grammar range sufficient and accurate?

- If no: Priority is Grammatical Range and Accuracy. Practise complex structures and error correction.

- If yes: You are likely at Band 7 or above. Focus on precision and naturalness.

Task 1 vs Task 2: Time Allocation and Feedback Cycles

You have 60 minutes total for both tasks. The recommended allocation is 20 minutes for Task 1 and 40 minutes for Task 2. This reflects the weighting: Task 2 is worth two-thirds of your Writing score.

Feedback cycles should match this weighting. For every three feedback sessions, two should focus on Task 2 and one on Task 1. This ensures you are spending feedback time proportionally to score impact.

Task 1 feedback cycle (20 minutes):

- 5 minutes: Plan (identify overview, select key features, group data)

- 12 minutes: Write

- 3 minutes: Self-assess using the Task 1 checklist

Task 2 feedback cycle (40 minutes):

- 5 minutes: Plan (identify position, select main ideas, plan paragraph structure)

- 30 minutes: Write

- 5 minutes: Self-assess using the Task 2 checklist

Common Cross-Task Errors

Some errors appear in both tasks but require different fixes.

Error: Overuse of linking words.

- Task 1 fix: Replace linking words with referencing ("This trend," "This increase," "Such a pattern").

- Task 2 fix: Replace linking words with logical progression (each sentence follows from the previous one without needing "Moreover" or "Furthermore").

Error: Informal language.

- Task 1 fix: Replace "go up" with "increase," "go down" with "decrease," "a lot" with "a significant proportion."

- Task 2 fix: Replace "kids" with "children," "a lot of" with "numerous," "things" with "factors," "get" with "obtain" or "receive."

Error: Repetition.

- Task 1 fix: Use synonyms for trend language (rise, increase, grow, climb) and for data reference (figure, percentage, proportion, rate).

- Task 2 fix: Use synonyms for key concepts (education, schooling, learning; government, authorities, policymakers).

Error: Article errors.

- Task 1 fix: Check "the" before specific data references ("the highest proportion," "the lowest rate"). Check zero article before general references ("Housing is the largest expense" not "The housing is the largest expense").

- Task 2 fix: Check "the" before specific nouns ("the government," "the economy") and zero article before abstract nouns ("Education is important" not "The education is important").

Applying Feedback to Both Tasks: A Unified Approach

Despite the differences, the feedback approach for both tasks follows the same sequence:

1. Check task fulfilment first. No amount of grammar correction will fix a missing overview or an unclear position.

2. Check organisation second. Logical grouping (Task 1) or logical progression (Task 2) is the skeleton of the response.

3. Check vocabulary third. Precision and range matter more than complexity.

4. Check grammar last. Error density and sentence variety are the final filter.

This sequence ensures that feedback is prioritised by score impact. A response with a clear overview and logical organisation but simple grammar will score higher than a response with complex grammar but no overview.

Feedback Phrases for Task 1 and Task 2

Use these phrases when giving feedback to a peer or when self-assessing.

Task 1 feedback phrases:

- The overview is missing — there is no general statement of the main trends — Your response describes the data but does not tell the reader what the main trend is.

- The overview is too specific — the overview includes specific data points instead of general trends — The overview should say "housing is the largest category" not "housing is 35% in Country A."

- The data selection is not selective — the response describes every data point rather than selecting key features — Focus on the two or three most significant trends and omit minor details.

- The grouping is illogical — paragraphs are organised by the order of the chart rather than by trend — Group countries with similar trends together.

- The comparison language is inaccurate — comparative structures contain errors — Check "than" vs "then," "as...as" structures, and superlative forms.

Task 2 feedback phrases:

- The position is unclear — the essay does not state a clear opinion or the opinion shifts between paragraphs — State your position in the introduction and maintain it throughout.

- The position is contradicted — the conclusion contradicts the introduction — Ensure your conclusion reaffirms the position stated in the introduction.

- The ideas are underdeveloped — body paragraphs have topic sentences but no explanation or example — Extend each idea with a "because" clause and a specific example.

- The counter-argument is missing — the essay does not acknowledge the opposing view — Add a sentence acknowledging the opposing view and explaining why your position is stronger.

- The examples are vague — examples are generic ("in my country") rather than specific — Use specific examples, even if hypothetical ("For example, if a government invests in public transport...").

Summary: Task 1 vs Task 2 Feedback Priorities

Priority	Task 1	Task 2
1	Overview	Position
2	Data selection	Idea development
3	Logical grouping	Argument logic
4	Data language	Abstract language
5	Comparison structures	Complex grammar

Use this table as a quick reference before every feedback session. It ensures you focus on the right criterion for the right task.

Transition to Chapter 4

Chapter 3 has given you the task-specific feedback framework. Chapter 4 provides a catalogue of 50 common errors with fixes by band level. Each error is tagged as Task 1, Task 2, or both, so you can target your practice precisely. Chapter 5 turns this into a 30-day improvement plan. Chapter 6 provides 20 sample feedback reports that apply the frameworks from Chapters 2 and 3 to original simulated responses.

Chapter 4: 50 Common Errors & Fixes by Band

This chapter catalogues the 50 most frequent errors found in IELTS Writing scripts across all four scoring criteria. Each entry gives you the error pattern, the band range where it typically appears, a corrected version, and the feedback you would receive from an experienced marker. Chapters 4.1 to 4.25 cover the first 25 errors; the remaining 25 appear in the second half of this chapter.

4.1 Overgeneralised Thesis in Task 2 Introductions

Criterion: Task Response

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: The candidate states a sweeping claim with no scope, such as "Everyone knows that technology is bad for children." This is unqualified, unverifiable, and often copied from memorised templates.

Original sentence (Band 5.5):

> Nowadays, everybody knows that technology is bad for children and it should be banned completely.

Corrected version (Band 7.5):

> While digital devices offer clear educational benefits, excessive screen time has been linked to reduced concentration and poorer sleep among primary school children, which suggests that some form of parental guidance is necessary.

Feedback: Your position is visible but absolute. Examiners reward a thesis that is specific, arguable, and proportionate. Replace "everybody knows" with a qualified claim that acknowledges the other side. Note that the corrected version uses "while" to concede, then narrows to "primary school children" — this is the level of precision expected at Band 7 and above.

4.2 Missing Position Throughout the Essay

Criterion: Task Response

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: The introduction announces a position, but body paragraphs drift into listing advantages and disadvantages without returning to the candidate's view. The conclusion then introduces a new opinion.

Original (Band 5.5): Introduction states "I believe remote work is beneficial," but the conclusion states "In conclusion, remote work has both pros and cons."

Corrected version (Band 7.0): Introduction states "I believe remote work is beneficial for employees but requires regulation to protect junior staff." Every body paragraph topic sentence echoes this split position, and the conclusion restates it without new content.

Feedback: Task Response at Band 7 requires a "clear position throughout the response." A position is not a single sentence in the introduction; it is a thread that runs through every paragraph. If your conclusion contradicts your introduction, the examiner will cap Task Response at Band 6.

4.3 Under-Length Responses

Criterion: Task Response

Typical band: 4.5 to 5.5

Error pattern: Task 2 responses under 250 words, or Task 1 responses under 150 words. Under-length scripts receive a penalty and usually cannot reach Band 7 because there is insufficient content to demonstrate range.

Original: A Task 2 essay of 198 words.

Corrected version: A Task 2 essay of 265 to 290 words, with each body paragraph developed to 90 to 110 words.

Feedback: The 250-word minimum is not a target; it is a floor. Aim for 260 to 290 words in Task 2 and 160 to 190 words in Task 1. Under-length essays lose marks on Task Response first, then on Coherence because ideas are compressed and underdeveloped.

4.4 Ignoring Part of the Task

Criterion: Task Response

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: The prompt asks two questions, or asks for a discussion plus an opinion, and the candidate answers only one part.

Original prompt type: "Discuss both views and give your own opinion."

Original response: Discusses both views but never states an opinion.

Corrected version: One body paragraph per view, each ending with a sentence that evaluates that view, plus a clear opinion in the introduction and conclusion.

Feedback: This is one of the most costly errors in Task 2. If you answer only half the question, Task Response is capped at Band 5 regardless of your grammar. Before writing, underline every instruction verb in the prompt: discuss, give, evaluate, compare.

4.5 Data Inaccuracy in Task 1

Criterion: Task Achievement

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: The candidate misreads the chart, swaps the highest and lowest categories, or reports a trend in the wrong direction.

Original (Band 5.5):

> The number of visitors from Europe fell sharply between 2010 and 2020, reaching a peak of 2 million.

Corrected version (Band 7.0):

> The number of visitors from Europe rose steadily between 2010 and 2020, peaking at 2 million in 2018 before declining slightly.

Feedback: In Task 1, accuracy is non-negotiable. A single reversed trend can push Task Achievement down to Band 5 because the examiner cannot trust your data selection. Always re-check the axis labels and the direction of each line before you write.

4.6 Listing Every Data Point

Criterion: Task Achievement

Typical band: 5.5 to 6.5

Error pattern: The candidate reports every number in the chart without selecting key features. This produces a mechanical, list-like response that lacks overview.

Original (Band 6.0):

> In 1990, the figure was 12. In 1995, it was 15. In 2000, it was 18. In 2005, it was 22.

Corrected version (Band 7.5):

> Between 1990 and 2005, the figure rose steadily from 12 to 22, an increase of more than 80 per cent. The sharpest growth occurred after 2000, when the annual rise doubled compared with the previous decade.

Feedback: Task Achievement at Band 7 requires a "clear overview of main trends, differences or stages." Select two to four key features and group them. Numbers should support your description, not replace it.

4.7 No Clear Overview in Task 1

Criterion: Task Achievement

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: The response jumps straight into details without a sentence summarising the overall pattern.

Original (Band 5.5): The essay begins "The chart shows the number of cars in five countries. In Japan, the number was 40 million."

Corrected version (Band 7.0): The essay begins "Overall, car ownership increased in all five countries over the period, with the most dramatic growth occurring in China and India."

Feedback: The overview is the single most important sentence in Task 1. Without it, Task Achievement cannot exceed Band 6. Place it immediately after your paraphrase of the prompt, before any specific figures.

4.8 Memorised Template Openers

Criterion: Coherence and Cohesion

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: The candidate opens with "In this day and age, it is a highly controversial issue that..." or similar memorised phrases. Examiners are trained to spot these and they do not contribute to coherence.

Original (Band 5.5):

> In this day and age, it is a highly controversial issue that many people debate whether technology is good or bad.

Corrected version (Band 7.5):

> The role of technology in children's education has become increasingly contested as schools adopt digital tools at scale.

Feedback: Memorised openers signal a lack of genuine engagement with the prompt. Coherence is about logical flow, not formulaic phrases. Replace templates with a paraphrase that uses the prompt's specific vocabulary.

4.9 Mechanical Use of Linking Words

Criterion: Coherence and Cohesion

Typical band: 5.5 to 6.5

Error pattern: The candidate inserts "Firstly," "Secondly," "Moreover," "Furthermore," "In addition" at the start of every sentence, regardless of whether the logical relationship requires it.

Original (Band 6.0):

> Firstly, technology is useful. Secondly, it is convenient. Moreover, it is fast. Furthermore, it saves time.

Corrected version (Band 7.5):

> Technology streamlines routine tasks, which frees time for higher-value work. This efficiency gain is most visible in sectors such as logistics, where automated scheduling has cut delivery times by up to 30 per cent.

Feedback: Cohesion comes from the logical relationship between ideas, not from the number of linking words. Overuse of connectives is explicitly penalised at Band 7 because it makes writing feel mechanical. Use referencing (this, such, these) and lexical chains instead.

4.10 Faulty Paragraphing

Criterion: Coherence and Cohesion

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: The essay has no clear paragraph breaks, or paragraphs contain multiple unrelated ideas.

Original (Band 5.5): One block of 280 words with no paragraph breaks.

Corrected version (Band 7.0): Four paragraphs: introduction, two body paragraphs each with one central idea, and a conclusion.

Feedback: Each paragraph should have one controlling idea, stated in a topic sentence and developed with explanation and example. If you can move a sentence to another paragraph without changing the meaning, your paragraphing is unclear.

4.11 Pronoun Reference Ambiguity

Criterion: Coherence and Cohesion

Typical band: 5.5 to 6.5

Error pattern: "This" or "it" refers to something unclear, forcing the reader to guess.

Original (Band 6.0):

> Governments should invest in public transport. This is important.

Corrected version (Band 7.5):

> Governments should invest in public transport. Such investment reduces congestion and lowers per-capita emissions.

Feedback: Vague pronouns weaken cohesion. Replace "this is important" with a noun phrase that names the idea: "this investment," "such a policy," "this shift." This technique is one of the fastest ways to raise your Coherence score.

4.12 Repetition of the Same Vocabulary

Criterion: Lexical Resource

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: The candidate repeats the same content words, especially "people," "good," "bad," "important," "thing."

Original (Band 5.5):

> People think technology is good. Many people use it because it is good. It is important for people.

Corrected version (Band 7.5):

> Public attitudes towards technology are largely positive. Consumers adopt digital tools because they streamline daily tasks, and policymakers increasingly regard digital literacy as essential.

Feedback: Lexical Resource rewards range and precision. Build topic-specific word families before the exam: for technology, learn "adopt," "streamline," "digital literacy," "automation," "connectivity." Use a thesaurus only if you are certain of the collocation.

4.13 Inaccurate Collocations

Criterion: Lexical Resource

Typical band: 5.5 to 6.5

Error pattern: The candidate pairs words that do not naturally co-occur, often from direct translation.

Original (Band 6.0):

> We must do a strong effort to solve this problem.

Corrected version (Band 7.5):

> We must make a concerted effort to address this problem.

Feedback: Collocation errors are the most common reason candidates plateau at Band 6 in Lexical Resource. Learn words in chunks, not in isolation. "Make an effort," "take measures," "pose a threat," "play a role" are high-frequency academic collocations worth memorising.

4.14 Informal Register in Academic Writing

Criterion: Lexical Resource

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: The candidate uses slang, contractions, or conversational phrasing.

Original (Band 5.5):

> Kids these days are totally addicted to their phones, and it's a big problem.

Corrected version (Band 7.5):

> Children today are increasingly dependent on smartphones, which has become a significant concern for educators.

Feedback: IELTS Writing is formal academic English. Avoid contractions ("it's," "don't"), slang ("kids," "totally"), and vague intensifiers ("a lot," "big"). Use "children," "considerably," "substantial."

4.15 Word Form Errors

Criterion: Lexical Resource

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: The candidate uses the wrong part of speech: noun instead of adjective, adjective instead of adverb.

Original (Band 5.5):

> The environment is pollution because of industry.

Corrected version (Band 7.0):

> The environment is polluted because of industrial activity.

Feedback: Word form errors are counted under Lexical Resource, not Grammar. Build a table of common word families: pollute (verb), pollution (noun), polluted (adjective), pollutant (noun). Check each sentence for the correct form.

4.16 Subject-Verb Agreement Errors

Criterion: Grammatical Range and Accuracy

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: Singular subjects paired with plural verbs, or vice versa, especially with collective nouns and long noun phrases.

Original (Band 5.5):

> The number of students who study abroad have increased.

Corrected version (Band 7.0):

> The number of students who study abroad has increased.

Feedback: The subject is "the number," not "students." Long noun phrases cause agreement errors because the verb is far from the head noun. Underline the head noun before checking the verb.

4.17 Tense Inconsistency

Criterion: Grammatical Range and Accuracy

Typical band: 5.5 to 6.5

Error pattern: The candidate shifts between past, present, and future without logical reason, especially in Task 1.

Original (Band 6.0):

> In 2010, the population is 5 million. By 2020, it grew to 8 million. In 2030, it will probably increase.

Corrected version (Band 7.5):

> In 2010, the population stood at 5 million. By 2020, it had grown to 8 million, and projections suggest it will reach 10 million by 2030.

Feedback: In Task 1, use past tense for past data, present tense for timeless facts, and future forms only for projections. In Task 2, use present tense for general claims and past tense for historical examples. Consistency signals control.

4.18 Article Errors

Criterion: Grammatical Range and Accuracy

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: Missing, extra, or incorrect use of "a," "an," and "the." This is the single most frequent grammar error among candidates whose first language lacks articles.

Original (Band 5.5):

> Government should invest in education because education is important for society.

Corrected version (Band 7.0):

> Governments should invest in education because it is important for society.

Feedback: Use "the" for specific reference, "a/an" for singular countable nouns introduced for the first time, and no article for general plural or abstract nouns. "Education" as a general concept takes no article. "The education system" takes "the" because it is specific.

4.19 Preposition Errors

Criterion: Grammatical Range and Accuracy

Typical band: 5.5 to 6.5

Error pattern: Wrong preposition after verbs, adjectives, or nouns.

Original (Band 6.0):

> This trend is similar with the situation in Japan.

Corrected version (Band 7.0):

> This trend is similar to the situation in Japan.

Feedback: Prepositions are memorised, not derived. Keep a personal list of the ones you get wrong: "similar to," "dependent on," "responsible for," "increase in," "reason for." Review it weekly.

4.20 Run-On Sentences and Comma Splices

Criterion: Grammatical Range and Accuracy

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: Two independent clauses joined only by a comma, or joined with no punctuation at all.

Original (Band 5.5):

> The government should act now, the problem is getting worse.

Corrected version (Band 7.0):

> The government should act now because the problem is getting worse.

Feedback: A comma cannot join two independent clauses. Use a full stop, a semicolon, or a subordinating conjunction (because, although, while). Comma splices are treated as sentence-level errors and cap your grammar score.

4.21 Fragments

Criterion: Grammatical Range and Accuracy

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: An incomplete sentence missing a subject or a main verb.

Original (Band 5.5):

> Because the cost of living is rising. Many families struggle.

Corrected version (Band 7.0):

> Because the cost of living is rising, many families struggle.

Feedback: A subordinate clause cannot stand alone. Attach it to a main clause. Fragments are especially common when candidates try to write complex sentences without full control.

4.22 Overuse of Simple Sentences

Criterion: Grammatical Range and Accuracy

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: Every sentence follows the same subject-verb-object pattern, producing a monotonous rhythm.

Original (Band 5.5):

> Technology is useful. It saves time. It helps students. It also helps workers.

Corrected version (Band 7.5):

> Technology saves time and supports both students and workers, although its benefits depend on how it is used.

Feedback: Grammatical Range rewards variety. Mix simple, compound, and complex sentences. A useful ratio is roughly 20 per cent simple, 40 per cent compound, 40 per cent complex.

4.23 Misplaced Modifiers

Criterion: Grammatical Range and Accuracy

Typical band: 6.0 to 7.0

Error pattern: A modifier is placed so far from the word it describes that the sentence becomes confusing or unintentionally funny.

Original (Band 6.0):

> Having considered the evidence, the conclusion was clear.

Corrected version (Band 7.5):

> Having considered the evidence, I reached a clear conclusion.

Feedback: The subject of the participle must be the subject of the main clause. In the original, "the conclusion" did not consider the evidence. Dangling modifiers are a Band 7 blocker because they obscure meaning.

4.24 Inconsistent Formal Style in Conclusions

Criterion: Task Response and Lexical Resource

Typical band: 5.5 to 6.5

Error pattern: The conclusion introduces a new idea, asks a rhetorical question, or shifts to a personal anecdote.

Original (Band 6.0):

> In conclusion, I think technology is bad. What will happen to our children? Only time will tell.

Corrected version (Band 7.5):

> In conclusion, while technology offers clear educational benefits, unregulated use poses risks to children's concentration and wellbeing. A balanced approach combining access with parental guidance is therefore recommended.

Feedback: The conclusion should restate your position and summarise the main supporting points. No new ideas, no rhetorical questions, no emotional appeals. This is a Task Response issue as much as a style issue.

4.25 Copying the Prompt Verbatim

Criterion: Task Response and Lexical Resource

Typical band: 5.0 to 6.0

Error pattern: The candidate copies whole phrases from the prompt into the introduction. Copied words are excluded from the word count and do not demonstrate lexical range.

Original (Band 5.5):

> Some people think that governments should spend more money on public transport. I agree with this.

Corrected version (Band 7.5):

> It is often argued that public transport deserves a larger share of government spending. I broadly agree, although the priority should be urban rail rather than bus subsidies.

Feedback: Paraphrase the prompt using synonyms and a different sentence structure. Copied strings are deducted from your word count and flagged as a lack of lexical resource. The corrected version replaces "governments should spend more money" with "deserves a larger share of government spending."

Error Tracking in Practice

The 25 errors above account for the majority of Band 5 to Band 6 scripts. Before moving to the second half of this chapter, audit your own recent writing against this list. Use the template in Appendix A to record which errors recur across three or more essays. Errors that recur are habits; habits require targeted drills, not general advice.

The remaining 25 errors, covering advanced issues in cohesion, lexical precision, and complex grammar, appear in the second half of Chapter 4.

Chapter 4: 50 Common Errors & Fixes by Band

Errors 26–50: Grammar, Cohesion, and Task Response

Error 26: Misuse of “the” with general plural nouns

- Weak: “The technology has changed the education.”

- Fix: “Technology has changed education.”

- Band impact: Lexical Resource and Grammatical Range & Accuracy. Overuse of articles is a persistent Band 6 feature.

Error 27: Comma splice between independent clauses

- Weak: “Many students study abroad, they want better jobs.”

- Fix: “Many students study abroad because they want better jobs.” / “Many students study abroad; they want better jobs.”

- Band impact: Grammatical Range & Accuracy. Comma splices reduce coherence and are penalized at Band 6 and below.

Error 28: Inconsistent tense in Task 1

- Weak: “The graph shows sales increased in 2010 and the figure rises again in 2015.”

- Fix: “The graph shows that sales increased in 2010 and rose again in 2015.”

- Band impact: Grammatical Range & Accuracy. Tense consistency is a core Band 7 requirement.

Error 29: Overgeneralization in Task 2

- Weak: “All governments must ban cars immediately.”

- Fix: “Governments could discourage private car use through congestion charges and improved public transport.”

- Band impact: Task Response. Absolute claims weaken argument quality and can cap Task Response at Band 6.

Error 30: Missing overview in Task 1

- Weak: “The chart shows men and women in part-time work. Men worked fewer hours than women.”

- Fix: “Overall, women were far more likely than men to work part-time across all age groups.”

- Band impact: Task Achievement. No clear overview usually limits Task Achievement to Band 5 or 6.

Error 31: Copying the prompt verbatim

- Weak: Repeating the exact question sentence in the introduction.

- Fix: Paraphrase using synonyms and changed sentence structure.

- Band impact: Lexical Resource. Copied language is not counted as evidence of vocabulary range.

Error 32: “Firstly, Secondly, Thirdly” overuse

- Weak: “Firstly, … Secondly, … Thirdly, … Lastly, …”

- Fix: Use logical links such as “A further consideration is…”, “More importantly…”, “Conversely…”

- Band impact: Coherence & Cohesion. Mechanical linkers are a Band 6 feature.

Error 33: Unclear pronoun reference

- Weak: “Parents and teachers should cooperate because they are responsible.”

- Fix: “Parents and teachers should cooperate because both groups shape a child’s learning habits.”

- Band impact: Coherence & Cohesion. Ambiguous reference reduces clarity.

Error 34: Wrong preposition after common verbs

- Weak: “depend of”, “interested on”, “similar with”

- Fix: “depend on”, “interested in”, “similar to”

- Band impact: Grammatical Range & Accuracy. Preposition errors are frequent at Band 6.

Error 35: Subject-verb agreement with collective nouns

- Weak: “The government have decided…”

- Fix: “The government has decided…” (consistent British or American usage)

- Band impact: Grammatical Range & Accuracy. Consistency matters more than variety.

Error 36: Overuse of “very”

- Weak: “very important”, “very big problem”

- Fix: “crucial”, “significant”, “substantial”

- Band impact: Lexical Resource. Replacing “very + adjective” with precise lexis raises vocabulary scores.

Error 37: Unsupported claims in Task 2

- Weak: “Everyone knows that technology harms children.”

- Fix: “Research from the Pew Research Center (2023) suggests that excessive screen time correlates with reduced attention spans in adolescents.”

- Band impact: Task Response. Evidence and examples strengthen argument development.

Error 38: Wrong use of “etc.”

- Weak: “Sports such as football, tennis, etc. are popular.”

- Fix: “Sports such as football and tennis are popular.”

- Band impact: Lexical Resource. “etc.” is informal and vague in academic writing.

Error 39: Mixing British and American spelling

- Weak: “color” and “colour” in the same essay

- Fix: Choose one variety and apply it consistently.

- Band impact: Grammatical Range & Accuracy. Inconsistency signals weaker control.

Error 40: Overlong sentences with multiple clauses

- Weak: A 60-word sentence with four subordinate clauses.

- Fix: Split into two or three sentences with clear subjects.

- Band impact: Coherence & Cohesion and Grammatical Range & Accuracy. Clarity matters more than complexity.

Error 41: Data misreading in Task 1

- Weak: “The figure doubled from 20% to 30%.”

- Fix: “The figure rose by 10 percentage points, from 20% to 30%.”

- Band impact: Task Achievement. Incorrect data description directly reduces Task Achievement.

Error 42: No comparison in Task 1

- Weak: Describing each category separately without linking them.

- Fix: “While men preferred full-time work, women were more likely to choose part-time roles.”

- Band impact: Task Achievement. Comparison is required for Band 7+.

Error 43: Informal language in Task 2

- Weak: “Kids”, “a lot of”, “stuff”, “things”

- Fix: “Children”, “many”, “factors”, “issues”

- Band impact: Lexical Resource and Task Response. Register errors reduce both criteria.

Error 44: Missing topic sentences

- Weak: Paragraphs begin with examples instead of a clear main idea.

- Fix: Start each body paragraph with a topic sentence that states the main point.

- Band impact: Coherence & Cohesion. Topic sentences are a Band 7 feature.

Error 45: Repetition of the same linking word

- Weak: “Moreover” used four times in one essay.

- Fix: Vary with “In addition”, “Furthermore”, “Equally important”, “Beyond this”.

- Band impact: Coherence & Cohesion. Repetitive linking devices lower the score.

Error 46: Incorrect use of “on the other hand”

- Weak: “On the other hand, I agree with this view.”

- Fix: “On the other hand” should introduce a contrasting view, not agreement.

- Band impact: Coherence & Cohesion. Misused connectors confuse the reader.

Error 47: No clear position in Task 2

- Weak: The essay discusses both sides but never states the writer’s view.

- Fix: State your position in the introduction and reinforce it in the conclusion.

- Band impact: Task Response. No clear position caps Task Response at Band 5 or 6.

Error 48: Overuse of rhetorical questions

- Weak: “Why do people do this? Is it right?”

- Fix: Convert to statements: “This behaviour raises important questions about fairness.”

- Band impact: Task Response and Lexical Resource. Rhetorical questions are inappropriate in academic writing.

Error 49: Wrong use of “number” vs “amount”

- Weak: “a large amount of students”

- Fix: “a large number of students”

- Band impact: Lexical Resource. Countable and uncountable noun errors reduce precision.

Error 50: Missing conclusion in Task 2

- Weak: Essay ends after the second body paragraph.

- Fix: Add a conclusion that summarises the main points and restates your position.

- Band impact: Task Response. No conclusion limits Task Response to Band 6 or below.

Quick Reference: Error-to-Band Mapping

Error Range	Most Affected Criterion	Typical Band Cap
1–10	Task Achievement / Response	Band 6
11–20	Coherence & Cohesion	Band 6
21–30	Lexical Resource	Band 6–7
31–40	Grammatical Range & Accuracy	Band 6–7
41–50	Mixed	Band 5–6

---